N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 262

trial level than at the appellate level in deciding an equity principle?

MR. LASHER: Well, where it's a problem of developing some substitute for the principles of law, I think that they are closely akin, but I would point out at this time that Pomeroy, considered one of the outstanding authorities, has indicated that to merge law and equity was to loot equity. I suppose you have heard that many times before. It would loot equity jurisprudence to its prejudice, and I think that holds true with these suggestions that are made on one side to simply abolish Chancery, and on the other side that we preserve it in its original glory, if you want to put it that way. I don't think Chancery is perfect. I think there is room for improvement.

I am getting off the chart here, I suppose, but the chart does indicate a Chancery Division - I am speaking here on behalf of the Bar Association - preserving as far as possible the existing Chancery system, not making it possible to get a suit out of court simply because of a practice question, not because of any deficiency in the lawyer's training or in his industry or in his ability to discern the question involved, but because in many cases the specific question has not been ruled on before, or, as in this case, the Vice-Chancellor's ruling on the case that just came down from the Court of Errors and Appeals - a very able Vice-Chancellor, but he didn't catch the point. I don't think lawyers can be condemned for going into court on these problems and sometimes finding out that they should have been in another court. I think that in the interests of the public that ought to be corrected in some way - that the court system should function as one of the coordinated departments of government. Not to be brought up-to-date for the sake of change, not for the sake of correcting some abuses that may have resulted from personnel, but for the purpose of giving them quick, efficient administration of justice, to preserve and strengthen the system.

MR. WINNE: Would this shift a case from one court to another, Mr. Lasher, if you found some law questions involved in a Chancrey case?

MR. LASHER: No sir, not under this plan.

MR. WINNE: If you had your case started in a court of the Chancery Division, even though a law matter came up, you would keep it in that court and have that judge make final -

MR. LASHER: One disposition of the cause. I think that with the rules of court it can be so worked out that you would only have incidental questions arise, as distinguished from a purely legal problem being brought into a law court for disposition. I think it could be so worked out, and for that reason a General Court